Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 06-11 PCP _w PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER June 11, 1998 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - May 28, 1998 I 4. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Economic Development Authority 98011 Request to rezone from R-4 (Multiple Family Residence) to R-2 (One and Two Family Residence) two parcels of land formerly addressed as 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. 6. Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master 98012 Request for a Planned Unit Development amendment for Phase H and Phase III of the Lutheran Church of the Master PUD. 7. Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master 98013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval to combine into a single lot four parcels of land that make up the Lutheran Church of the Master complex. 8. City of Brooklyn Center 98014 Request for a Special Use Permit and Site and Building Plan approval for a new police department on property to be addressed as 6645 Humboldt Avenue North. 9. Other Business 10. Adjournment • f r` �' • I 1 • Application Filed on 5-14-98 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 7-13-98 (60 Days) • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 98011 Applicant: Economic Development Authority Location: 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North Request: Rezoning The Economic Development Authority(EDA)of the City of Brooklyn Center is requesting rezoning from R-4 (Multiple Family Residence) to R-2 (One and Two Family Residence) of two parcels of land addressed as 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. The properties in question are located northeasterly of the intersection of 53rd and Camden Avenues North and are bounded on the south by 53rd Avenue; on the west by Camden Avenue; and on the north and east by other R- 2 zoned property that has recently been acquired by the EDA and cleared for the purpose of creating a parkway-like greenstrip amenity along 53rd Avenue and new housing in this area. The lots under consideration were also acquired and cleared and are part of the redevelopment proposal included in the replat of the property to be known as the Bellvue Lane Addition. These lots are currently described as the West 99.32 feet of Lot 11, Block 2, Bellvue Acres Addition (620 53rd Avenue North) and the East 100 feet of the West 199.32 feet of Lot 11, Block 2, Bellvue Acres Addition(610 53rd Avenue North). The area proposed to be rezoned includes a 50 ft. by 199.32 ft. portion of the proposed Outlot B (the 50 ft. greemvay) and the southerly 76 • feet of the proposed Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Bellvue Lane Addition. Also,a 76 ft. by 29.32 ft. portion of the southwesterly corner of the proposed Lot 3, Block 2, Bellvue Lane Addition will also be part of the area proposed to be rezoned. BACKGROUND. The two lots requested for rezoning had each contained a four-plex built in 1959 and were zoned R-B (Residence-Business) at the time of construction. They became non-conforming uses in 1968 when the city undertook a comprehensive rezoning in accordance with the recommendations of the 1966 Comprehensive Plan and this area was then zoned R-2 (One and Two Family Residence). As a non-conforming use, the four-plexes were not allowed to expand or be altered, and if destroyed by more than 50 percent, could not be rebuilt. These four-plexes, as well as a number of other small apartment complexes in the southeast neighborhood of the city, continued to be non-conforming uses until 1989 when the owners of the properties at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North jointly requested rezoning to R-4 for the purpose of eliminating their non-conforming use status so that they could add garage space on their property. Neither the Comprehensive Plan of 1966 or the Comprehensive Plan of 1982 6-11-98 Page 1 appeared to recommend phasing out these small apartment complexes in the southeast neighborhood of the city. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan seemed to encourage their continuance. The city, therefore, rezoned these two properties as well as nine other similar properties to R-4 based on the Comprehensive Plan and other findings made by the city at that i time as to the appropriateness of the rezoning. Now, the city's plan is to redevelop this area to provide new housing and a parkway-like greenstrip along 53rd Avenue and to eliminate some deteriorating housing in this area which had the potential of a blighting influence on the neighborhood, hopefully providing a positive impact to the southeast neighborhood of the city. A series of neighborhood meetings were held leading up to the decision on the part of the EDA/City Council to undertake the redevelop proposal. Twenty-eight homes were acquired and cleared over the past year, including the two four-plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue. The project is moving forward and a preliminary plat has been recommended by the Planning Commission and has been forwarded to the City Council for consideration. To be in compliance with the zoning ordinance, the land in question must be rezoned to be consistent with the development proposal and compatible with surrounding land uses. Thus, the R-2 rezoning proposal by the EDA has been undertaken. REZONING EVALUATION GUIDELINES All rezoning proposals are to be measured against the city's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the city's zoning ordinance (copy attached). It is the policy of the city that zoning classifications be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan and that rezoning proposals not constitute"spot zoning" which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the , Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. Each rezoning proposal is to be considered on its merits and measured against the various guidelines contained in Section 35- 208. A review of the guidelines is as follows: a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The Economic Development Authority/City Council has determined that there is a public need or benefit in the proposal to redevelop the area around the property under consideration in this rezoning proposal. As indicated previously, 28 single family homes have been acquired and the proposal is to create a 50 ft. wide parkway-like greenstrip along 53rd Avenue and to redevelop the balance of the property with single family homes. Fifteen new single family residential lots are proposed with the Bellvue Lane Addition. In order for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, of the proposed Bellvue Lane Addition to be built on, it is required that the portion of the properties be rezoned to a consistent and compatible land use designation, in this case R-2, for the proposal to proceed. Numerous neighborhood meetings have been held with respect to the proposal and the proposal is considered to be a public need or benefit. 6-11-98 Page 2 y b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The surrounding land use classification is all R-2 (One and Two Family Residence) as is the southerly portion of the southeast neighborhood of the city. Certainly down zoning the property from its current R-4, which allows multiple residential use of the property, to an R-2 would be consistent with the surrounding land use classifications. The property between 1968 and 1989 had been zoned R-2 as well. c. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district can be contemplated for development or redevelopment of the subject area. The city has acquired the properties in the immediate area and have cleared them of their buildings and proposes a redevelopment of this area, each lot of which can meet and, in fact, exceed the minimum requirements for development as proposed. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? There have been physical changes in the area since 1989 including the acquisition of the 28 lots and the clearing of these lots for the proposed redevelopment. The rezoning would be consistent with the redevelopment proposal. i e. In the case of city initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The Economic Development Authority/City Council has determined that the broad public purpose to be served with this redevelopment proposal is to provide a positive impact in the southeast area of the city by providing new housing and a parkway-like greenstrip along 53rd Avenue in addition to eliminating some deteriorating housing in the area which has the potential of a blighting effect on the rest of the neighborhood. Hopefully this project will provide a positive impact in the southeast neighborhood as well as in the entire city. f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The Bellvue Lane Addition preliminary plat, which has been presented previously to the Planning Commission, shows that there is no major difficulty with respect to 6-11-98 Page 3 -c meeting ordinance development restrictions for the proposed single family use of the property in question. g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district,with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? It cannot be said that the property is unsuited for multi-residential development, however, the plan going forward does not comprehend any multi-residential development or redevelopment in this area. For the project to proceed, the R-2 rezoning must be accomplished. h. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of the zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3. The best interests of the community? The proposed R-2 rezoning is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the southeast neighborhood of the city. There is a general lack of developable land throughout the city and redevelopment proposals are the only means available to the city to accomplish development/redevelopment goals. As indicated previously,the proposed redevelopment of the parkway-like greenway and 15 single family residential lots is considered to be in the best interests of the community. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Again, we believe the positive effects of the redevelopment proposal are in the best interests of the city. PROCEDURE The Planning Commission normally refers rezoning requests to respective neighborhood advisory groups for review and comment. There has been much neighborhood review and comment over the past year and a half with respect to this proposal. We do not believe it is necessary to conduct another neighborhood advisory group meeting and,therefore, have prepared a draft resolution for the Planning Commission's consideration recommending approval of this application. A public hearing has been scheduled and notice of the Planning Commission's consideration has been sent to neighboring property owners and has been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. 6-11-93 Page 4 I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 98011 SUBMITTED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER. WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 98011 submitted by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from R-4 (Multiple Family Residence) to R-2 (One and Two Family Residence) of two parcels of land currently addressed as 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on June 11, 1998, when a staff report was received and public testimony regarding the rezoning was sought; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed rezoning in light of the report received, testimony given, the guidelines for evaluating rezoning contained in Section 35-208 of the city's zoning ordinance and in light of the city's comprehensive plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 98011 submitted by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The rezoning will allow for the appropriate redevelopment of the entire area between 4th Street North and Bryant Avenue North, northerly of 53rd Avenue in a manner which is considered to be in the best interests of the community by providing new housing in the area and a parkway like greenstrip along 5')rd Avenue that will eliminate some deteriorating housing in this area which had the potential of a blighting influence on the neighborhood. 2. The rezoning will allow for the development and redevelopment of land uses which are considered to be compatible with surrounding land uses in this area. 3. The rezoning of the land will allow for the redevelopment of the property in this area in a manner which will be consistent with city zoning regulations and will provide a positive influence on the southeast neighborhood as well as the city as a whole. 4. The rezoning proposal is consistent with the city's recommendations in the comprehensive plan. Date Chair ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. C i Pl 7-rl- -1, ORD t C/!7 0 Z � 0'2 I AV t.� avay ' I t 1 Y AVM. N. `ATw A:E. N ff►�:� 7 o ,• oul , I v_! INj r'- , SbPri avE. N.I ; E C I it 1 t-- �--- �---.-�—,1 or--I , A —� PLANNING CO ISSION Ei APPLICATION NO. 98011 cz I I } v+ IL LL �'1 � rul , i , ! i I S"a a '�� • : � s 4 IXI ...�= -•2 •. _ ;� _�i •��-Q1 Nr1YF.tg7.i+fJli �� •__� • ' ioe ': ,O- }f •sR4?-1.................... �.1• i `�1:t __ �.. �•_ Ali; 1 f. r r, --JRrr vJ�_---1 �i-i3-----7: - t j�t�;AA a :i� �S• 's r• �.. .� I `rat. y++�l• a -1��r �.1 a.r'. J i, �a t � � �•c sit { � :� .• ' r1• ����:: 17, T/�/``�• •• rJl: � ■ � � t —�� _J ,•. �3 `its '�1• ��`'•. 1: i:�{ sib Lx ►t \ I r;� y .[_ I ij ;S s i = '�,.. '� �� �� � 't•J•:.. 111 uawa Jrcwc watt' Te "s: 1 •. � + ., it Its "' ' .1 JL �►•;��•,:•J � it •t,' I 1 _........ CD it 251 HA i -'\ Lee F I 4 �o,r r �',•(fir ��' -T $42R� q '� ra• 'ti 1 V: q: ;q-2 ALLEY (11 �'.�. ,n�l�:' 7 117' :t 4 ; rc ? _••. .2 [•. •O 1..17.....;1 •"••••••111 °V D Q N QQ a tr.tINII MaMTY =�I •�.C.� �"'; : .1„i x aL•. - .. - 1 i e �p c _J +1 Ir l 1 E p R rl;. Oe• wQ p u�T >Z�1 . ,O+l/►e• 1� 8 as i ,-r _xi__. •• �i .l Ili r d i ...EKT•v:���. : ry W� '.w+0”�s�L / t • a • Application Filed on 5-21-98 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 7-13-98(60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 98012 Applicant: Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master Location: Northwest Quadrant of Dupont and 69th Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment The applicant is seeking a planned unit development amendment for Phase II and Phase III approval of the Lutheran Church of the Master PUD. The Brooklyn Center City Council on November 14, 1994, adopted City Council Resolution No. 94-244, which approved Planning Commission Application No. 94009 submitted by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master. That application was a planned unit development rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residential) and R-4 (Multiple Family Residence) to PUD/R-1 of the properties addressed as 1200 69th Avenue North, 1107 Emerson Lane, 1100 69th Avenue North and 6907 Dupont Avenue North. The church at that time had acquired three apartment buildings to the east of their facility and wished to incorporate the use of these buildings into a church use. The overall plan was the combining of these parcels and the eventual utilization of the three apartment buildings by the church for church purposes over a phased, or staged, period of time. The 1994 approval was for the first phase comprehending the use of the apartment building addressed as 1107 Emerson Lane North as a learning facility for children and youth of the church for Sunday school and confirmation classes. The properties under consideration are zoned PUD/R-1 and are located at the northwest quadrant of Dupont and 69th Avenues North. They are bounded on the north and east by 70th Avenue, Emerson Avenue, Emerson Lane and Dupont Avenue with single family homes and one of the city's water towers on the opposite sides of these streets; on the south by 69th Avenue with single family homes and the city's public utility building on the opposite side of 69th Avenue; and on the west by the Northbrook Terrace apartment complex. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of City Council Resolution No. 94-244 and the development agreement between the church and the City of Brooklyn Center relating to the church's planned unit development. The church, in 1994, was not in a position to do all of the work and submit all,of the necessary plans at that time for their planned unit development. Thus,they proceeded with a phase development proposal. Phase I, which was the use of the building at 1107 Emerson Lane as a learning facility was begun in 1994 and a physical connection was made between the church and this building. 6-11-98 Page 1 The church was required to submit the necessary site plan including landscaping, grading, drainage, utility and floor plans along with a preliminary plat and watershed plan in a timely manner prior to proceeding with the Phase II and Phase III utilization of the property. They are now in a position to proceed with Phase II and Phase III. 40 Phase II will include the use of the building addressed as 6907 Dupont Avenue North as a large group meeting facility for approximately 100 people. It would involve such uses an adult and children chorus, drama groups, youth gatherings, senior citizen day teaching and fellowship. It would also involve the use of the building for some small group meetings and their space needs, as well as a small prayer chapel. Originally Phase III,which involves the use of the building addressed as 1100 69th Avenue North, was planned to be the church's global mission center and their proposal involved retaining two complete apartment units strictly for use of missionary families who are on home leave for short periods of time. The building was also proposed to house an evangelical mission home office staff and provide more office space for teaching and counseling of persons interested in doing mission work. The church has slightly changed their plan with respect to this use. It will serve as a home for missionaries that are on leave and they do not plan physical changes to the building. It will not be converted to offices nor house office staff nor will it be used for teaching and counseling of persons as previously proposed. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW The church is now proposing a physical link between the Phase I and Phase II buildings. They have submitted the required plans for the city's review. They plan to eliminate a portion of the parking lot between the first two phases where the building connection will take place and they propose to provide some additional landscaping on the site as well. Parking on the site exceeds the requirements of the city ordinance for church parking (one space for every three seats in the church proper). We believe the parking will be more than adequate given the other church uses proposed. The City Engineer has contacted the Watershed Commission regarding their review of the proposal. He has been advised that the Watershed Commission will not require any further review of the church plan. Basically, they are not adding additional run off to the site. In fact, overall, it appears that there will be less impervious surface given the plan that is proposed. With respect to grading, drainage and utilities, no changes to the site other than the modification of the parking lot between Phase I and II is proposed. The applicants have submitted a preliminary plat (see Application No. 98013) which will combine these three lots into a single lot containing the church as well. 6-11-98 Page 2 LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system used to evaluate such plans. We typically use the office landscape standard for church buildings and public buildings and have used that standard for review of the church's landscape plan. The total size of the site is 5.9 acres and a total of 512 landscape points are required for such a site. There are a total of 529 landscape points already existing on the site in the form of shade trees, coniferous trees, decorative trees and shrubs. The church's proposal is to add an additional 107.5 points basically around the three new buildings incorporated into their site. They propose ten Hackberry trees, five of which are located around the perimeter of the buildings with four trees adjacent to the proposed connection between the Phase I and Phase II buildings and an additional Hackberry tree on the westerly side of the Phase III building. Three Crabapple trees are proposed to the south of a walkway area southerly of the proposed connecting link and four Spirea and two Lilacs are also planted in this same area. The total landscape points on the entire site will amount to 636.5 points, which is well in excess of the 512 landscape points required. BUILDING The applicant has submitted building elevations and floor plans showing the remodeling to take place in the Phase II building. The connecting link between Phase I and Phase II will provide a ramp that will allow for handicap access to the Phase II building. This building will also have an elevator so that the building will be totally handicap accessible. The exterior of the connecting link ,711 be of a material to match the existing exterior of the Phase I and Phase II buildings. The site plan shows the location of a dumpster area to be screened with an eight foot high wood opaque fence. It should be noted that the gates housing this enclosed area are also to be of an opaque material. PROCEDURE As previously mentioned, this proposal is an amendment to the planned unit development proposal for the church. As such, it is required to follow the procedures contained in Section 35- 355 regarding planned unit developments. This requires a public hearing, which has been scheduled. Notices have been sent and notice has been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. Normally with rezonings or a planned unit development, these matters are referred to neighborhood advisory groups for review and comment. This matter was originally before the northeast neighborhood advisory group, which supported the church's proposal. It may not be necessary to refer this matter to the neighborhood advisory group as the changes and modifications to the plan are relatively insignificant. 6-11-98 Page 3 RECONINNIENDATION The plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended subject to the following considerations and conditions. 1. Approval of this planned unit development amendment acknowledges City Council Resolution No. 94-224 in terms of the findings made at that time and notes that the Phase II and Phase III plans are consistent with those findings. 2. The building plans for building additions and modifications are subject to the approval of the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee shall be submitted to assure the completion of approved site improvements. 4. The church shall enter into a modified development agreement with the City,to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, prior to the issuance of building permits for the Phase II and Phase III utilization of the buildings. Said agreement shall be modified to reflect the final phasing plan as submitted by the church. 6-11-98 Page 4 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 94-244 RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 94009 SUBMI`= BY THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE MASTER WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 94009 submitted by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master proposes rezoning from R1 (Single Family Residence) and R4 (Multiple Family Residence) to PUD/R1 of the properties addressed as 1200 69th Avenue North, 1107 Emerson Lane, 1100 69th Avenue North and 6907 Dupont Avenue North all located at the northwest quadrant of Dupont and 69th Avenues North; and WHEREAS,' this proposal comprehends the combining of these parcels and the eventual utilization of three apartment buildings by the Lutheran Church of the Master for church purposes over a phased, or staged, period of time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on September 15, 1994,when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and plan where received; and S WHEREAS, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider this matter on October 13, 1994, at the City Hall and unanimously recommended approval of this Planned Unit Development proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of this matter on October 27, 1994, received a staff report and took further testimony during a continued public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 94009 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 94-1 on October 27, 1994; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 94009 at it November 14, 1994 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this rezoning and plan request in light of all testimony.received, the guidelines for evaluation rezonings contained in Section 35- 208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and in light of the provisions of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance contained in Section 35-355, and in light of the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Council Resolution No. 94-244 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 94009 submitted by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master be approved in light of the following considerations: 0 1. The rezoning and plan are compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The rezoning and development plan will allow for the utilization of buildings by the church in a manner which can be considered compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The utilization of the property in question, with the submission of future plans, will conform with city ordinance standards. The phased, or staged, incorporation of the buildings for church purposes is considered a reasonable use of property. 4. The rezoning and plan are considered compatible with recommendations in the City's Comprehensive Plan for the northeast neighborhood area. 5. The eventual incorporation of the buildings and their utilization by the church appears to be a good long range use of the existing buildings and can be considered to be in the best interests of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the Ci ty n of Brooklyn Center that approval of Application No. 94009 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The immediate use of the building at 1107 Emerson Lane North for Sunday School and Confirmation classes may proceed subject to the approval of the building official regarding the occupancy and use of the building. 2. The continued use of the buildings addressed as 1100 69th Avenue North and 6907 Dupont Avenue North as-rental dwellings is allowed until the second phase of the project begins, subject to the licensing provisions in the City's Building Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. 3. A multiple family residential use of the three apartment buildings may be re-established if, for some reason, the church's proposal does not go forward and the phased utilization of these buildings is not undertaken. City Council Resolution No. 94-244 4. The Lutheran Church of the Master shall submit the necessary site plan including landscaping, grading, drainage, utility and floor plans along with Sa preliminary plat and watershed plan in a timely manner prior to proceeding with the phase II and phase III utilization of the property. 5. The church shall enter into a development agreement with the City, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to phase I utilization of the buildings. Said agreement shall outline the phasing of this plan including when platting, watershed review, and the physical plans shall be accomplished. November 14, 1994 Date Mayor AT'T'EST: C-4 Deputy City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Celia Scott and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, and Kristen Mann; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and.adopted. • z • DEVELOPtitEvT AGREEME-N i THIS AGREEMENT is made this-�2 I day of_r)(T U , 199Y by and between the City of Brc6dyn Center, a Mnnesota, municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Developer"), and Norrnan Chazin (hereinafter referred to as "Chazin"); WITNESSETH: I. RECITALS. 1.1. Developer is the owner of real prop_rt.1 in the city of Brooklyn Center in an R-1, single family residential zone of the city developed as a church under a special use permit from the city. Such property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Evangelical Lutheran Church of the tiiaster, 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, and is herein;`ter referred to as the "Church Property" 1.2. Chazin is the owner of three apartment buildings in the city of Brooklyn Center located at 1107 Emerson Lane, 110'0 69th Avenue North, and 6907 Dupont Avenue North, and legally described as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1,Broosdale Manor 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, which property is hereinafter referred to collectively as tine "Ch.azin Property". 1.3. The Developer has entered into a contract for dead with Chazin for the purchase of the Chazin Property and has applied to the city for rezoning of the Church Property and the Cha-n Property to PLTD/R-1, and approval of a development plan therefor. 1.4. The Developer's application requests that the Church Property and Ghe Chazin Property be rezoned to PUD/R-1 for development of a :esidet'tial PUD for church uses in three phases. Ligon completion of development of all thre- phases, the Church Property and tine CYamn P.cperry :vou!d be developed as a unid:ied planned residen iai development for church uses. 1.5. Phase I of tt:e Developer's proposed development involves the use of the aparur enc building located at 1107 Emerson Lane (hereinafter referred to as the "Phase I Property") as a leamina facility for children and youth of the church for Sunday school and confu-mation classes.0 The building would generally be used between 8:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on Sundays for teaching approximately 175 to 200 second through twelfth graders. The building would also be used for confirmation classes arA!r, eveningSfor children in grades seven through nine. 1.6. Phase II of the proposed development would involve the use of the building located at 6907 Dupont (hereinafter referred to as the "Phase II Property") as a remodeled large group meeting facility for approximately 100 people:. The proposed uses would involve such uses as adult and children chorus, drama groups, youth gatherings, senior citizen day teaching and fellowship. Phase iT would also involve the remodeling of the building for small group meetings and their space needs as well as a small prayer chapel. It is anticipated that Phase II development would begin Sometime in 1996. 1.7. The proposed Phase III development involves the property located at 1100 69th' Avenue Nordn (hereinafter referred to as the "Phase III Property"). The third phase is anticipated to occur during 1997 and 1998. The Phase III Property would be developed as the Developer's global russions center and would involve retailing r.vo complete apartment.units strictly for the use of rnissionary families who are on home leave for short periods of time. The buildLng would also house short term evangelical mission horse office staff and would provide more office space for teaching and counseling o`persons interested in doing mission work- 1.8. The Developer has requested to be permitted to develop the Church Property and $.e Chazin P=opery:n phases no wi.thst:Lndinb that derailed and final development plans includ.ng site plan, clan. dra.Lrage and utili:� plans, floor pla_:ns, and other final details of the development have =o: yet beet complercd, and approval of ti,e watersi:ed district for such BEs9: 2 development has not yet been secured. Specifically, the Develoce. has requested that it be permitted to develop and use the Phase I Property as described above prior to final plan development. 1.9. T'ee city council has approved rezoning and development of the Chazin Property and the Church Property in phases conditioned, among other things, on execution by Chaffin and Developer of a development a,reement to assure that final development will be in accordance with approved detailed plans as hereinafter provided. II. COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS. 2.1. The Developer is permitted to develop and use Phase I Property as described above subject to conditions specified by the city council on November 14, 199:4 and compliance with the terms of this A eement. 2.2. Phase II and Phase III Properties may continue to to used for multiple family residential uses, but may not be used for church uses until the Developer has satisfied all requirerrents of Para;aph 23 of t`iis Agreement and has been issued a certificate of occupancy by the City for such uses. The Phase I Property may not be used for residential purpose unless zoning thereof reverts to R-4 zoning in accordance with paragraph 2.7 of this Agreement 2.3. No building rernuts or certificates of occupancy for caurca us;--s of Phase II or Phase III Properties rill be issued by the city until gill of the following conditions have been met: a. The City has approved for the unified development of the Chain Prope:-y and the Church Property a site plan, floor plan, landscaping plan, drainage- and ut?li y plan, and all of her requirerrerts of the development plan set fork in ciry code Section 35-355, sued. 5, preurtinary and final plat approval, and issuarce of a special USe _r:e-,-P.:t for church uses. 46 b. The City and the Developer have executed a Canal development and PUD agreement for the Chazin and Church Properties. C. A drainage plan for development of the Church and Chain Properties have been approved by the Watershed District. d. The Developer has secured fee title to the Chazin and Church Properties. 2.4. No new buildings and no changes to the exterior dimensions of existing buildings on the Chazin Property or Church Property are permitted without approval of a PUD amendment by the city council. 2.5. After the Developer has acquired fe:, title to the Phase I, Phase II and Phase III Properties, multi-family residential use of the apartment buildings on the Phase II and Phase III Properties may continue only until such tirre as such use is discontinued in any one apartment 'e ding whereupon such use in such building shall be deemed abandoned and thereafter no multi-farrily residential use may be made of such building wit.-tout prior approval of a PUD amendment by the city council. 2.6. Phase !, Phase II and Phase III Properties nay not be separately conveyed by Cba-,in to *h,,e Developer or to any other party. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent Chazin Emm conveying to any third party its vender's interest in the contract for deed with the Developer. 2.7. In the event the Developer looses its interest under the contract for deed from Cha--:.-i, by cancellation or otherwise, in any or a-1-1 of the Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III Properties, the zon ng of all such properties shall revere automatically, and without�irther action by the city council, to R-4 and no firlher church uses of any of chcse properties shall be pe', cted. 2.8. All uses, including church uses and multi-family residential uses, of the Phase 1, Phase II and Phase III Properties are conditioned on continuing compliance with all regulatory requirements of the city. 2-9. The Developer shall satisfy all requirements of Paragraph 2.3 no later than January 1, 1999. in the event such requirements are not so satisued by January 1, 1999, the zoning of the Phase I, Phase II and Phase III Properties shall revert automatically, and without further action by the city council, to R-4, and no further church uses of any such property shall be permitted unless this agreement is earlier amended by resolution of the city council to extend the deadline for such comniiance. 2.10. The use of the Phase I Property shall comply with &I!requirements of the city code relating co R-1 zones as a special use for church purposes. Spzclrically, the Phase I Property shall be used as described above is pa*agragh 1.5 unless a charge of use is authorized by the city council in accordance with city code requirements applicable to special uses of chinches in R-1 zones. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Tcdd Paulson Its tiiayer By Ge:ald SDIIn Its 'Ma=aer f: =7":_ 11- 21-.94 13:U: FACuu: Fnt3E bb _ I1�21!139d 12:41 612�c @i4�3 �._ F,UTH=-°-�•'`�CF-L-%ZCH OF THE N ASTER i Its Bly- e-_ssca s t1-^i '9d LL:3? TX/r, N0.0217 P.006 • •� �- . 11111 =Mom •� mm mm ME m M son mm mm ma mma mm m MM Awl WN '' mm mm m ==mum .. X1 .11111111/ r ■ .� 1111 �m� �. i �� ■ ■- t r loot t; v ter_ ■ r_�_ � - ■■ �� all ■ WE IN'"Wil 16WIl Will WE V,lk IWA OVA LOVA IN IN ������W��������� r MA MA s _ - • MEN w ji IV IZ I LU —7 z a. LU I C) CID 0 LU LU ui LU 0. L H Ci,-1:1;��IAL -1 A' -1 nN3A'V IN .7 Lu 1z- - --------------- uj .4' M. LU z Rn ON -AffNj-AW Njb7Saj-4 77 77 CL , 7— r LU LU IM U > ............... UJ uj 7. - ail. — 7, • • i N 3 zu It Xj i J l++ar a ;o p I •:/ ;r ass ..�r'• —_ —tea ° -—_ a Application Filed on 5-21-98 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 7-13-98 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 98013 Applicant: Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master Location: Northwest Quadrant of Dupont and 69th Avenues North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to combine into a single lot four parcels of land that currently make up the Lutheran Church of the Master complex. The properties under consideration are zoned PUD/R-1 and consist of the parcel containing the church proper and three adjacent properties containing apartment buildings that have been,or will be, converted into church use. The request is pursuant to condition No. 4 of the City Council approval of a Planned Unit Development for the Lutheran Church of the Master under City Council Resolution No. 94-244 on November 14, 1994. The property in question is bounded on the north and east by 70th Avenue, Emerson Avenue, Emerson Lane and Dupont Avenue with single family residential homes located on the opposite sides of those streets as well as the city water tower; on the south by 69th Avenue with single family homes and the city's public utility building on the opposite side of the street; and on the west by the Northbrook Terrace apartment complex. The properties are currently described as Lot 1, Block 1, Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master 2nd Addition(1200 69th Avenue North) and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Brookdale Manor 2nd Addition(1107 Emerson Lane, 6907 Dupont Avenue and 1100 69th Avenue North respectively). The new legal description is proposed to be Lot 1, Block 1, Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master 3rd Addition. Once combined, the site will be 258,052 sq. ft. in area or 5.92 acres and will contain all of the church buildings in this area. The plat comprehends the dedication of an additional seven feet of right-of-way for 69th Avenue North from the current Lot 3,Block 1 Brookdale Manor 2nd Addition. The City Engineer is reviewing the plat and will probably recommend the vacation of some of the drainage and utility easements that were drawn around previous lot lines and are no longer needed or required. The City Engineer has contacted the Watershed Commission,which has indicated that no formal review of the plat or Planned Unit Development plan are necessary. A public hearing has been scheduled and notice of the Planning Commission's consideration has been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. 6-11-98 Paae 1 RECONIMENDATION There appear to be no major problems with the proposed combination. Approval of the application is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the city ordinances. 6-11-98 Paae 2 v ON ro ■ �� �� �� � �� �� ■ate �E� �� � -.- ' � - �■_"� ■ �i ,�� ■also® a/■ ■t■ _ ■ SIM Ile ME; ME I � � s - - � _ ��� � ■ W1 mm mn FA MA k,1WA SPA VA ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ , . ♦ _ r 1 s cr H lota LL E �J = Z U O I S ~ U � Z Q soc 'S'N �g tars lar; Y W ro It1 ,R M 1 t\ I ` Y..- � 7 • M I .• a Q ° —�- - 3 I }} I a W LU ouj IL Pte•—• .��J' ' �'� !�,�-�°'�taar-�nr,3nv—^-vcsa3w3r• �- r 1\ 1 I x l --1----- --- �s �.� W c i it'I L_-----------I--- _—=�:c;w,� • • 3 Application Filed on 5-29-98 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 7-27-98 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 98014 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: 6645 Humboldt Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit/Site and Building Plan Approval The City is seeking site and building approval and a special use permit to construct a new two story, approximate 29,120 sq. ft. police department along the west side of Humboldt Avenue,just south of 67th Avenue North, on property to be addressed as 6645 Humboldt Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) and the police station is considered a special use under the category of"governmental offices"which are allowed in the R-5 zone through the granting of a special use permit by the City Council. The subject site is bounded on the north by R-5 zoned property containing a ten unit townhouse complex; on the east by Humboldt Avenue with an apartment complex on the opposite side of the street; on the south by R-2 zoned property containing the Berean Evangelical Free Church and parsonage; and on the west by I-1 zoned property containing a light industrial building. The city over the past few years has acquired five parcels of land (6637, 6715, 6717, 6719 and 6721 Humboldt Avenue) each containing a four-plea, which have all been demolished. These five parcels of land will make up the approximate 2.26 acre site that will house the Brooklyn Center police department building. These parcels will be combined into a single lot through the platting process in the near future. SITE/ACCESS/PARKNG The building is proposed to be located in the approximate center of the site, set back about 110 feet from the Humboldt Avenue right-of-way. Access to the site will gained via two access points, one on the north side of the site and the other on the south. The northerly access will line up directly across from 67th Avenue North. Parking is set back a minimum of 35 feet from the Humboldt Avenue right-of-way. Humboldt is considered a major thoroughfare, requiring a minimum 50 ft. building set back and a minimum 35 ft. parking set back for C-1 (Service/Office) uses. The special use permit for a service/office use in a R-5 zone requires compliance with the C-1 district requirements. Parking will be located on the north. west and south sides of the building. Most visitor or customer parking will be on the north side of the building as the main building entrance will be at the northwest corner of the building. 6-11-98 Page 1 The plan calls for 104 parking spaces including four handicapped parking spaces in the north parking lot close to the main building entrance. The city is proposing to provide parking on the basis of staff, need for public parking and fleet parking needs. At least 8,100 sq. ft. of the first floor of the building is a secure area providing for a holding area for prisoners on a short term basis, evidence room, evidence garage, sally port, equipment room, storage and dispatch area. The balance of the first floor, approximately 6,400 sq. ft. will be offices,open work room, reception area, conference rooms and lobby. The upper level contains a squad room,.men's and women's locker rooms, rest rooms, mechanical room, sergeant and investigator offices and a possible expansion area that could be a workout room for officers in the future. Approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of the 29,000 sq. ft. will be actual office area. For this reason we are proposing a parking arrangement based on staff, public and fleet vehicles. Attached is a memo from the architect showing the proposed parking breakdown basis. The total staff operating out of the police department on a 24 hour basis is 62 persons. Fifteen public parking spaces are proposed and 2') fleet parking spaces are provided for a total of 100 parking stalls needed. A C-1 use would require 142 parking spaces based on the parking formula for an approximate 29,000 sq. ft. building (gross floor area divided by 204.5 sq. ft.). The Police department is a unique use. It is not entirely service/office as previously mentioned. The 62 total staff are not present at one time because of the three shifts involving a 24 hour operation. The zoning ordinance allows for the City Council to make a determination on the appropriate amount of parking and the architects analysis seems appropriate. The down side of such a determination is that this building could not be marketed for a future office use in its entirety should the city at some point choose to relocate the Police department. It appears that approximately 30 more parking spaces could be added to the site on the east and north sides of the building bringing total parking to approximately 134 parking spaces. C-1 uses are required to provide 15 ft. buffer areas where they abut R-1 zoned property at a property line. Such a buffer area is provided on the south side of the site ,.vhere the property abuts R-1 zoned property containing the Berean Evangelical Free Church and the parsonage. The parsonage and parking lot are closest to the police department site. The ordinance requires screening between a C-1 type use and an R-1 use. The church is considered an institutional use and no screening to the church parking lot would be expected. Landscape screening between the police department parking lot and the parsonage is proposed. No specific buffer is required between the police department use and the R-5 zoned townhouse use to the north, other than the requirement that parking areas containing more than six parking spaces must be screened from abutting residential property by a solid wall or opaque fence six feet high, or such'other device as may be approved by the City Council. Again, landscape screening is proposed to meet this screening requirement. A determination should be made as to whether or not the landscape plan provides sufficient screening to meet these requirements. 6-11-98 Page 2 DRAINAGE/GRADIN / JTILITIE A sparse drainage, grading and utility plan has been submitted to this point which is being reviewed by the City Engineer. We hope to have comments from the City Engineer prior to Thursday's meeting. The site is less than five acres (2.26 acres), therefore, no Watershed Commission review is required. The plan shows water and sewer lines running from Humboldt Avenue and entering the building on the south side. Drainage shows no catch basins or on site storm sewer, which I am certain the City Engineer will require. LANDSCAPING A landscape plan has been submitted in response to the landscape point system used to evaluate such plans. The landscape architect used 2.43 acres as the site area on which he calculated the need for 2;4.4 landscape points based on the point system used. The landscape plan presented shows a total of 902 landscape points based on a variety of plantings including existing shade trees, a new shade tree, ornamental trees, coniferous trees, shrubs and perennials. A total of 50 existing shade trees are proposed to be retained on the site. Many will be located along the westerly greenstrip separating the parking lot from the property line where the abutting industrial use is located. Others are located in the large landscape area located between the building and the Humboldt right-of-way. Most of these existing trees,running in size from 6 in. in diameter to 26 in. in diameter, are located in the southerly portion of this large landscape area. This area also includes a walkway connecting with existing sidewalk along Humboldt Avenue to the main building entrance. Fifty-two ornamental trees, 30 Red Barron Crabapple, 16 Amur Maple and six Pink Spires Crabapple are proposed. Twelve Red Barron Crabapple are located along the south side of the building while 18 are on the north side of the building. Six Pink Spires Crabapple are located on either side of the north entrance to the site with the Amur Maple located on either side of the south entrance to the site and along the south greenstrip. Brandon Arborvitae, with a minimum 5 ft. high planting height, are used as the chief screening device to meet the screening requirements for the north and south greenstrip areas abutting residentially zoned property. Fourteen of these arborvitae are proposed for the south greenstrip intermixed with decorative trees and 24 of these arborvitae are planted along the north greenstrip to provide screening of the parking lot from the townhouses to the north. One hundred seventy-two shrubs are proposed, both Redleaf Japanese Barberry and Skandia Juniper. These are provided as foundation shrubs both north and south of the building and in a planting bed on either side of the north driveway and in various island projections in the north and south parking lots. One Northern Pin Oak is to be located on an island projection at the northwest corner of the building. All in all the landscape plan well exceeds the minimum landscape point requirements and appears to be appropriate. Again, a determination should be made as to whether or not the landscape plan provides sufficient screening to meet the requirements of the ordinance for screening where parking lots abut residential uses to both the north and south sides of the site. 6-11-98 Page 3 BUILDING As previously mentioned, the building is to be located in the approximate center of the site. Perhaps the most prominent feature to the building may be the main entrance area at the northwest corner of the building. The building exterior will be a sandstone color, somewhat lighter than the proposed exterior color for the new fire station and will be an insulated pre-cast concrete panel with two etches creating the appearance of shading or a lighter and darker sandy color. The window and door frames will be bronze. LIGHTING/TRASH The trash area will be enclosed and located on the westerly or back side of the building across the drive lane from the evidence garage. A photometric plan has been submitted showing the location of nine perimeter lighting poles with a box or enclosed type fixture to direct light down onto the property. The foot candles indicated along the property line are within the requirements of the city ordinance. Also,lighting will be along the back side of the building and in the entrance area at the northeast corner of the building and by the southerly exit from the building. SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS A public hearing has been scheduled for this special use permit and notices have been sent. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of Section 35-220 containing the five standards for special use permits. As indicated previously, the police department is a special use in the R-5 zone under the category of"governmental offices". Certain service/office uses are allowed by a special use permit in an R-5 zoning district. In addition to the typical standards for special use permits, the city must also make a finding that the proposed used is compatible and complimentary to existing adjacent land uses as well as those uses permitted in the R-5 district generally. The proposed use must be of comparable intensity to other permitted R-5 district uses and be planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and not have an adverse impact on the immediate neighborhood or community. We believe that the location and development of the police department in this location will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. Furthermore, we do not believe that this use will be injurious to other property in the immediate vicinity nor will it diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress as well as parking on the site that will minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The proposal, furthermore, seems compatible and complimentary to existing adjacent land uses and is of comparable intensity to other permitted uses in the district. Therefore, it is recommended that a determination be made that the standards for special use permit and the additional standards of the use being compatible and complimentary to existing adjacent land uses and of comparable intensity are also met. 6-11-98 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION All together it is believed that the plans and special use permit are in order and approval of these application is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Any outside trash disposal facilities and/or rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed on all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances. 7. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and parking areas. 8. An as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines shall be provided to the City Engineering department. 9. The landscape screening plan submitted with the application is deemed to be appropriate screening meeting the intent of the city ordinance for screening bet,veen a service/office type use and residentially zoned property. 6-11-98 Page 5 w - - i� ii �i ■■■■■■■1■■ m -_ �� �� � � �'y is =" ■ loom INS ONE son IN VA 1W 2E OE I a i �■ iii � 1m i■■ u Apr um PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. v 98014 [=F ■ - l� �i ARWA � ■ ■ ■ o ■ MW OR;Ai RLWA Ow,A MA IVA -- ►e- 111 Ll—1 f � � • J. I tf� t to AL ��♦ 7 ♦ l� 4 Lam•- I 1 if\ 1,,1 fit 1 / lola It + I ♦ H• e I Or 1 ----- -4--- -- -----— ---------- ----- - ---- __ •,•,ate —� i am ON _/I— 9► '3nN3A� 1 annH off .� is ix s ID 1 < 1 cwM oew.osarrz - )w tat mMCriucr,om I Z • • • • • 331 M.•t0 $.goof 3era.1 • all....f.11.. Mt.....e. 13101 /.a flt•l1f•f 111 71..• ft1.33f•1713 1wY1.M- It► 'D.a 71f. 9.r 710. ti�-f1rYa DROM i N wN l M .5171:. PLAN POLICE STATION Iww�.rrw_...r..r.rrr BRO.YN CDaQ AVNINLWTA .•.r rr.�r.r.�r rrr r.r r .ra.a .Irrwr .rr�rrrrrr.� roe tr rr.�r. so g ' 1 -r OO-------- --------------g---- _ _ O s e I $0 0" Hl�QN 3iIN3AV Y o 11C879nH tr — ED iv I CNE EER IN FFA no a f I°JAI'_A, ilY F' Sul n i 0 ' 221 N�rt11 2696nd 191461 • 11lnelupolta. 111114e.11.t• 15101 • Fee 611.139.6211 those 612.1111.171111 i 1w1�1a !1. .D.r P.Ittt 1%. w—The BROOKLYN CENTER 51?c 'LAN • z ;, - POLICE STATION ^ r...�.ww....wr..,.�.r..� �:) T BROOKLYN CENTER.MRINFSOTA ��,_ ...+w.....��.w.r....++........... DESIGN DEVELOPMLYT - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ,- Sf�ij�}��[,jr �Sc;�� (��Iar jj�s[•sr �( { trs �! ���{ }r.11�(. jl[�: =r•i ter•j�[ }'fj,'lj �a7�; iSa f+{t • c j ryry t li a`' 3�f ! li3i•, r r � !■ !. rte �J" � { lalr•r�cj?�itj litl:lra:.3 {jirtla 11 I �a[a •�IIj�Iijt'i �.i i Ir�i}`}i}i:�rf efi' • it}f i�r�14i1 f etc i [�S[;��;j>Teit f i j i ! � y at i I ` a ��9A • ff r I Ejt- 4 IL4 \ its 2 00 43 � . �� •�� 1 I 1, � �' D � — ��� r��-''�� • t ram ( , lO —'r' - -1, iii ree� r i If3`� 323 r I[!� 1ltj f c # �ai� isee I T a i E ? �• $r#� d 3 • o }s..# O i# ii€a t .t Fg '1 I 1 _'. . Q i f�}1, • I I C�r,..j I 1 3[$3 t: ct� e •�a 4.1 'WA ''- � • � � of ci I�+raE � � � ►e amt f a ocx essocar� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1? °'�.°.. n � BROOKLYN CEMM t POLICE STATION BOUNDARY SURVEY I I i j °•� SPAOMYN MOM►•r43xrrA 7 ----- ---- n n S ' II 1 - °# a I II 11 1 I } t t 1 all 1 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT - NOT FOR CONMUC ON O • o s o iii M.stl1 fw{lsl fIr111 Y1w w.l�wlll, Ylwwllwtl !7101 /lw {li•]]{•{211 /.wwl {11•]]!•]7!1 i..w.. w ipy� I+.t.s twb iy 71r t� BROOKLYN CENTER ST FLOOR PLAN POLICE STATION FIR i BROOKLYN CFMER,MINNESOTA � �_` rrl.�rrrrrww� • I I I � , U � — — a Eli 7 Fgl ' ElI a r• �fa Pa a D0000� g� I a . DEAGN DEVELOPMENT - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION . 311 North 3e•e.0 street ...•�•�,•, rt..eeet• 33.01 9e. 011.339-0313►...e 011.9)9.3731 9..e•rr N. 'sw inter T r, Seer l TV" ewe.rr - BROOKLYN CENTER SECOND FLOOR PLAN r„, POLICE STATION a,..... DAOOKLYNCENTER MWNESOTA �.rre.tr.errrr,rrr•,�et s . e.er e.e. .r ter♦rr•�� �1 Mimi1 ���■� MIMI gems rLp MEN tl ■° vol®10111� I.1 is �p ■_ a_ �NMI ��1� ■� 11 MER INN ji US loll 11 CWi 10 E ___ ■ '.x'09 ONES o pill 01 ■■■■ .E■ ■ ■. .. ■ INN 1� .. ■- INN Jos 111011 SEE oil 11111011ir.1 Nil ENE! 11W MEN 119T I I BG-A R,N1 A w-K-R Q--O S TFk-S ER VO-GEL =8.- A-- S.004 A TE- - A k C. -tt t T!'.E C --T t P E- f N T E C. t t: rJ • I t i l l f ! I I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 { I i l { I t 1 1 { { tt A J I tit ! f l l me f f 1 1 t l t 1 1 i l I t t I t t t 1 1 1 i s t 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 f • • I l l i f ! t 1 i t i 1 t I t t $ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o i l 1 { 1 1 11 B e s t t 1 1 1 1 • 1 s 1 t at is f f e e It flat 11 its LF-rl In { f 1 t 1 f o ! { t 1 • • 1 • ® I I i 1 t i l t f I t l • 1 1 s • 1 1 • t I 1 1 1 ! I t I l { 1 • 1 f f i l 1 1 1 • t • { 1 E f t f s l i s i 1 •- 1 • • 1 t I t i i 1 1 t t t 1 1 1 t 1 1 i t { 1 ! I f l f { t � • t t ! i 1 1 1 1 1 i t t t t 1 i l 1 1 t I t • t 1 t ! • t I t 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 i Z i t ! I i I t • I I i i l l l t l t t ! 1 t t { t ! s t { i i • 1 I 1 ! I t i i l t t t t l l l l l ! I { ' { f t ! { • a b` } 1 o q w n N J r« _ D 9's '111 i ; t lie � t1 csacrt ECVa crAUNT - NM it7R colsruicr on aaa x9 rob a.•..• f11001 ■14.40616 55491 • Iles 611-839•6a1a P••.• •F1-sa•-af Fla •..r.. er+. Foam nr n.a yr d■�... BROOKLYN CINM EUXTRICAL Stitt PLAN POLKS STATION l AX=Y1!Q?lrLf;.AUW=MA SML JLAOLMM BKPVMemorandum TO: Ron Warren Planning& Zoning Specialist City of Brooklyn Center COPY: Michael McCauley City of Brooklyn Center Jane Chambers City of Brooklyn Center Joel Downer Brooklyn Center Police Dave Hanson Bossardt Corporation FROM: Paul Mickelberg Boarman Kroos Pfister Vogel & Assoc. PROJECT: Brooklyn Center Police Station 3) COMM.NO.:141.02- DATE: Nlav 26, 1998 RE: Site Plan Approval- Parking The required parkin' for the Brooklyn Center police Station is based on the _ number of users and staff as well as the fleet vehicles for the department. There are 104 parking stalls for the building plus parking for 2 impounded vehicles in the secured evidence garage. The parkin; needs (current and future) for the building is as follows: • Staff Administration 21 Investigations 9 Patrol 32 Total Staff 62 Public Parking 15 stalls Fleet Parking 23 (26 total, 3 taken home) Total 100 The building is only about 50 percent office type use and because of the various shifts, not all the staff is present at one time as would be the case in a typical office building. Three of the fleet vehicles are taken home each evening and replace the need for personal vehicle parking. The worst case for parking would during a weekend evening during shift change. This would mean that there would be 15 patrol officers and 15 squads present for a short period of time. All staff department meetings will be held in Constitution hall. The police department is satisfied with the amount of parking planned for the building. END OF MEMO q:\.proj\1431-02`,b�mem-pm 1.doc n: . =ect:cn 35-2:0, SPECIAL USE 2- Standards for Soeczal use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. • (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. . (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deer► necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. • 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months *from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered•evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- Ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn. Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within t:at ti-e. Lz any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated "hereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. I Special Lases a. Nursina care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), provided that these iinstitutions shall, where required by state law, or regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. `/' b. Certain service-office uses which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: I. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the R5 district generally. ?. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the R5 district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted R5 district land uses with respect to activity levels. 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate neighborhood, or the community.. and which are described in Section 35-320, Subsections 1 (b) (c) (d) and 0) through (t). Such service- office uses shall be subject to the C 1 district requirements of Sections 35400 and 35-411, and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use classification which the proposed use represents. c. Chapels, churches, synagogues and temples, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street.